About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
the obama administration. >> in the book you write about the obama's administration handling of the withdrawal from iraq. the administration had a fresh chance to reengage with iraq's leaders and shape its politics. obama did not act decisively on that chance choosing ahead to take hands off approach on iraq. this decision was characteristic of those obama made on iraq. he saw america's involvement there not as an opportunity but rather as a leftover minefield, a path out of which had to be charted as quickly as possible. explain that to us. >> at the end of the bush administration, the beginning of the obama administration, violence was down substantially in iraq. the question was were we going to keep a small number of troops in iraq after 2011? how would that be negotiated? there was a significant difference, i think, in perspective between the pentagon where admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, civilians, saw iraq as an opportunity. they wanted to keep a reasonably sized force around 16,000. at the white house, the national security adviser saw it more t
of preemptive strike against iran, imagine that happens, what does the obama administration do if it's still in power come november and the election? what do you do? >> well, i mean, that's the dilemma in terms of turning to military action that may well be necessary at some point. israel probably has -- certainly has the capability to in some ways delay, you know, the advance towards that nuclear line, but perhaps does not have the ability to destroy the entire program. and that's the conundrum when you get to military action is in many respects, if you start this fight, one of two things has to happen. you have to continue to regime change as we did in iraq. that's a legitimate policy option but obviously a very expensive one. but the other is should it not destroy iran's nuclear program, you probably make that iranian bomb inevitable, because you can destroy facilities but you can't destroy knowledge. >> richard williamson, let's assume mitt romney wins in november. his rhetoric has been even stronger against president ahmadinejad and iran. what would a romney administration do if israel
of the obama administration. if i understand it correctly, i was busy dodging other kinds of projectiles in iraq at the time. if i understand this correctly, this is a deeply idealistic effort to try to say, we are not only going to give money, not only have an impact with a fairly large, civilian assistance program to balance our ongoing military commitment to pakistan, but we are also going to set up a structure or relationship to what is generally called the strategic partnership to try to mbreak out of that pattern. after 2008 and 2009, those of you who knew richard knew the hurricane hit pakistan and there was a set of very ambitious goals that were put in to try to build a long-term commitment to pakistan. i use long-term advisedly. america is focused on the counter-terrorism after post- 9/11. by the almost a pistol logical elements -- epistemological element, this was to balance that short-term set of needs. american safety, the safety of the pack as any people. to balance that with a commitment of long-term stability, and a vision with pakistan of a long-term stability in pakista
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)